Changes to Policy Development Process in RIPE

1. Introduction

This Since its creation in 1989, RIPE has from time to time agreed on common practices. These common practices may come in different forms and/or under different names: insert: </p>

insert: <li>
• best common practice (or BCP), insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• recommendations to the community, insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• requests to the RIPE NCC, insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• recommendations to the RIPE NCC, insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• or just policy. insert: </li>
insert: </ul>

In this document describes the RIPE Policy Development Process (RIPE PDP). It outlines how policies relating to the operation of the Internet they are developed by, and for, the RIPE community. This document deals solely with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, procedures and operations is out of scope. all called 'Policy'.

The process that results in the creation of a policy has some a few important and fundamental principles: delete: </p> delete: <ol> fundamental principles:  insert: </p>

1. It is open to all and follows an established, bottom-up process of collaboration. all. Everyone interested in the well-being of the Internet may propose a policy policy, and take part in the discussions that follow on from the proposal. discussions.
2. It is transparent. All discussions and resulting actions results are documented and freely available to all.
3. Decisions Conclusions are taken reached by consensus.
delete: <li> All policies are documented within RIPE Documents insert: </ol>

This process has worked quite well over the years. This document does not seek to change that. insert: </p>

What this document does try to accomplish is a description of the process that are placed in the RIPE Document Store. delete: </li> delete: </ol> will improve its management. insert: </p>

2. The Process

Past experience shows that before any text is drafted, it is very important to share the idea for a policy proposal with as many members of the RIPE community as possible. Presenting an idea to the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG) can lead to clarifications and improvements before the formal PDP is started. This is not mandatory, but it can save time and effort both for the community and for the proposers themselves.  delete: </p> delete: <p> Feedback received prior to starting the formal PDP can help to: delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> Clearly and concisely formulate the problem statement and the intended result delete: </li> delete: <li> Avoid creating a formal proposal with insufficient community interest or support delete: </li> delete: </ul> delete: <p> It can also offer an opportunity to: delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> Research whether a similar idea has been discussed before delete: </li> delete: <li> Seek advice from authors of successful proposals (to help or become co-authors) delete: </li> delete: <li> Make RIPE Working Group Chairs aware of a possible upcoming proposal delete: </li> delete: </ul> delete: <p> The chairs of the relevant working group In the process of developing a policy, several distinct phases are encouraged to guide the proposer in preparing a policy proposal. delete: </p> delete: <p> The process of developing a policy has four distinct phases: identified: 

1. Creating a Proposal  Proposal
2. Discussion Phase
3. Review Phase
4. Concluding Phase

These four phases are detailed below with below. insert: </p>

In the descriptions below, timelines are mentioned. They are proposed timelines deadlines for the various stages. These Individual proposals may differ for individual proposals, but choose to vary these, however the actual timelines timescales must be documented. documented. 

In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal.  delete: </p> delete: <p> At the end of each phase of the this process, one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list. delete: </p> delete: <p> The the RIPE NCC (the RIPE community's secretariat) provides gives administrative support throughout this process by: support, such as:

• Publishing administering proposals and related discussions insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• publishing on relevant webpages delete: </li> delete: <li> Tracking web pages insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• tracking deadlines
delete: <li> Making announcements to the RIPE community delete: </li> delete: <li> Providing insert: </ul>

Anyone who wants to draft a policy proposal may seek assistance in from the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC will provide relevant facts, statistics and an assessment of the work involved in the implementation of a proposal. The RIPE NCC will also assist with the drafting policy proposals of text if requested delete: </li> delete: <li> Providing relevant facts and statistics delete: </li> delete: <li> Publishing an impact analysis that points to the possible effects of the proposed policy and the work that would be involved in its implementation. delete: </li> delete: </ul> editorial services are required. insert: </p>

The process flow is illustrated in a diagram, attached as insert: <a href="#appendixa" data-linktype="anchor" data-val="0"> Appendix A. A insert: </a> .

There are a number of points in the PDP where at which disputes could arise. arise.  The PDP is designed so that compromises can be made and  delete: <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282"> and genuine consensus delete: </a>  achieved. However, achieved; however, there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree on the decisions made at the end of a PDP phase. agree. To achieve the goals of openness, transparency openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved through a process of open review and discussion.  discussion. This is documented in insert: <a href="#appendixc" data-linktype="anchor" data-val="2"> Appendix C insert: </a> .

2.1 Creating a Proposal

Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Community members Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using the Policy Proposal template, attached as insert: <a href="#appendixb" data-linktype="anchor" data-val="1"> Appendix B.  delete: </p> delete: <p> This B insert: </a> . insert: </p>

The template forms a structure for the proposal. It sets out details the reason for the proposal and any perceived consequences it might have. delete: </p> delete: <p> After preliminary discussion of the idea as suggested above, a proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. The of the proposal. insert: </p>

A proposal is usually submitted via one of the chairs of that WG. the Chair insert: <a href="#1" name="_ednref1" data-linktype="anchor" data-val="0"> [1] insert: </a> of the relevant RIPE working group. If the proposer insert: <a href="#2" name="_ednref2" data-linktype="anchor" data-val="4"> [2] insert: </a> is not certain which WG working group is appropriate for discussion of the proposal, they can send the proposal to the RIPE Chair at  delete: <a href="mailto:[email protected]"> at < insert: <a href="mailto:[email protected]" data-linktype="email" data-val="[email protected]"> [email protected] . If a proposal may need input from more than one WG, the relevant WG chairs will discuss the situation and decide the WG most suited to discussion of the proposal. Necessary announcements will be made to the other WG(s) so they can follow the discussions.  >.

The RIPE NCC gives identifies each proposal its own unique identifier with a number and publishes it them on a dedicated RIPE webpage. This webpage web page contains the version history and the status of all proposals. A proposal then has a specific status at any given time, which can be: have the following status: 

• delete: <strong> Open for Discussion: delete: </strong>  Meaning that the proposal is still being discussed within the RIPE PDP.  delete: </li> delete: <li> delete: <strong> Accepted: delete: </strong>  Meaning that the RIPE community accepted the proposal after all stages of the RIPE PDP were completed. delete: </li> delete: <li> delete: <strong> Withdrawn: delete: </strong>  Meaning that the proposal is withdrawn either by the proposer or by the WG chairs at one of the decision-making points.  Discussion insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• Accepted insert: </li>
insert: <li>
• Withdrawn 

2.2 Discussion Phase Phase 

Once a proposal has been submitted, the RIPE NCC it will announce it be announced on the Policy Announce Mailing List ( delete: <a href="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected] delete: </a> ), ([email protected]), which anyone anybody can subscribe to. This announcement will also indicates indicate where discussion on the this proposal will take place, usually on the relevant WG working group mailing list. The WG chairs proposal will also be sent to the relevant working group mailing list. insert: </p>

If significant comments or changes are suggested, there may be multiple iterations of this phase. Each published revision of a proposal will contain a history of changes to document this process. insert: </p>

The working group chair will set the a limited time period for the Discussion Phase and this discussion phase, which is at least usually not less than four weeks.

At the end of the Discussion Phase, depending on the feedback received, the proposer decides whether the proposal the proposer, in consultation with the working group chair, should be withdrawn from the RIPE PDP or, with the agreement of the WG chair, it can decide if the proposal will move to the next phase (Review Phase). This should be done no more than four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase. If the proposer does not communicate their this decision to the WG chairs working group chair within four weeks, the WG chairs working group chair can withdraw the proposal due to a lack of response from the proposer.   proposer. 

If significant comments or changes are suggested during the Discussion Phase, the proposer will edit the proposal and the new version of the proposal will be published by the RIPE NCC. A new Discussion Phase will then start for the new version of the proposal.  delete: </p> delete: <p> If the suggested comments and changes are not so significant as to require a new Discussion Phase, the proposer and WG chairs can decide to move decides to take the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase) with a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary edits. delete: </p> delete: <p> Each version of the proposal is publicly archived on the RIPE website to transparently show the history of changes to the proposal.  delete: </p> delete: <p> If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a Phase), the draft RIPE Document which should be published prepared within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase. If the proposal results in the modification or an update of an existing RIPE Document, then the draft RIPE Document needs to clearly mark the changes to the existing document. delete: </p> delete: <p> The RIPE NCC can help the proposer to prepare this document. delete: </p> delete: <p> The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal before it can be moved to the Review Phase. The goal of this analysis is to provide relevant supporting information to facilitate discussions on the proposal and provide some projections about the possible impact if it were to be accepted. This analysis will contain the following points: delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> The RIPE NCC's understanding of the proposed policy delete: </li> delete: <li> Impact on the registry and addressing systems (including Internet resource consumption, aggregation and fragmentation) delete: </li> delete: <li> Impact on RIPE NCC operations/services/capacity delete: </li> delete: <li> Legal impact delete: </li> delete: </ul> weeks. insert: </p>

2.3 Review Phase

The purpose of the Review Phase this phase is to review the full draft RIPE Document and impact analysis compiled at the end of the Discussion Phase. Further modifications to During the Review Phase, discussion of the proposal can continue while also focusing on the draft RIPE Document Document. insert: </p>

At the end of the Review Phase, the working group chair determines whether the working group has reached consensus. If consensus has not been reached, then the proposer may decide to withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, the proposal may return to the Discussion Phase, which can still be suggested during this phase. result in new documentation. insert: </p>

The Review Phase should last for a maximum of four weeks.

2.4 Concluding Phase

Unless the proposal is withdrawn or sent back for further discussion or review, it enters the Concluding Phase. The WG chairs now issue a "Last If the working group chair determines that the working group has reached consensus at the end of the Review Phase, the Chair moves the proposal to a Last Call for Comments" for the proposal on the WG Comments. The Last Call announcement is posted to the working group mailing list and allow four weeks for comments. The RIPE NCC will send a copy of the Last Call announcement to the Policy Announce Mailing List ( delete: <a href="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected] delete: </a> ). delete: </p> delete: <p> The purpose of this Last Call is to provide the community with a final opportunity to comment on the proposal. This is mainly intended for those who missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. It gives the community time after the relevant WG chairs declare rough consensus at the end of the Review Phase, so that suggestions ([email protected]). Suggestions for any final changes or objections to the proposal can be sent to the WG working group mailing list. list during this phase. insert: </p>

The Last Call period lasts four weeks. insert: </p>

At this stage, objections need to be justified and then addressed just as they must in the other phases. delete: </p> delete: <p> When the deadline for comments has been reached, the WG the end of the Last Call period, the RIPE working group chairs will evaluate the feedback received during this period and decide as a group whether consensus has been achieved.  achieved. If there is no feedback from the community at this stage, this is will likely to be regarded as consensus and it will mean the previous call of rough consensus from the WG chairs at the end of the Review Phase still holds.  consensus.

If consensus has been achieved, the RIPE NCC will announce the decision of the WG RIPE working group chairs to the Policy Announce Mailing List and, if necessary, will implement the policy.

If consensus has not been achieved at the end of this phase, the WG chairs can decide either to withdraw the proposal or to send it back to one of the previous phases. After a withdrawal, achieved, the proposer (or anyone else) is free to re-introduce the topic on the mailing list.  return the proposal to the working group for further discussion. insert: </p>

insert: <a id="1"> insert: </a> [1] Every RIPE working group has at least one chair (some working groups may have co-chairs). They are responsible for chairing discussions in the working group and, where necessary, making decisions in the Policy Development Process.  insert: </p>

insert: <a id="2"> insert: </a> [2] A proposal can have more than one author. insert: </p>

insert: <a id="appendixa"> insert: </a> Appendix A: Policy Development Process Diagram insert: </h2>

insert: <img class="img-100" src="../../../resolveuid/59cf005f268c4d81b5c3ab2a7da1fceb" alt="" data-linktype="image" data-scale="" data-val="59cf005f268c4d81b5c3ab2a7da1fceb" /> insert: </p>

insert: <a id="appendixb"> insert: </a> Appendix B: Policy Proposal Template insert: </h2>

insert: <li>
1. Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) insert: </li>
insert: <li>
2. Policy Proposal Name: insert: </li>
insert: <li>
3. Author insert: <ol>
   insert: <li>
   1. name: insert: </li>
   insert: <li>
   2. e-mail: insert: </li>
   insert: <li>
   3. organisation: insert: </li>
   insert: </ol>
   insert: </li>
insert: <li>
4. Proposal Version: insert: </li>
insert: <li>
5. Submission Date: insert: </li>
insert: <li>
6. Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication: insert: </li>
insert: <li>
7. Proposal type: insert: <ol>
   insert: <li>
   1. new, modify, or delete. insert: </li>
   insert: </ol>
   insert: </li>
insert: <li>
8. Policy term: insert: <ol>
   insert: <li>
   1. temporary, permanent, or renewable. insert: </li>
   insert: </ol>
   insert: </li>
insert: <li>
9. Summary of proposal insert: </li>
insert: <li>
10. Policy text insert: <ol>
    insert: <li>
    1. Current (if modify): insert: </li>
    insert: <li>
    2. New: insert: </li>
    insert: </ol>
    insert: </li>
insert: <li>
11. Rationale: insert: <ol>
    insert: <li>
    1. Arguments supporting the proposal insert: </li>
    insert: <li>
    2. Arguments opposing the proposal insert: </li>
    insert: </ol>
    insert: </li>
insert: </ol>

  insert: </p>

insert: <a id="appendixc"> insert: </a> Appendix C: RIPE Policy Development Dispute Resolution insert: </h2>

1. Introduction insert: </h3>

This document specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with disputes regarding the PDP. insert: </p>

In each of the situations described in Section 3 of this appendix, the action being appealed is the decision to declare consensus or lack of consensus. One cannot appeal the merits of the policy proposal itself or its technical, political or legal grounds. These issues must be addressed in the PDP phases and should be taken into account by community members during discussion of the proposal. insert: </p>

2. Terminology  insert: </h3>

2.1 Working Group Chairs Collective insert: </h4>

For the purpose of this document, the term "working group chairs collective" refers to the chairs and co-chairs of all current RIPE working groups, not including the current RIPE Chair. insert: </p>

2.2 Working Group Chair(s) insert: </h4>

For the purpose of this document, the term "working group chair(s)" refers to the current chair and co-chairs of a working group. insert: </p>

3. Appealable Actions delete: </h2> delete: <h3> insert: </h3>

3.1 Discussion Phase insert: </h4>

If during the discussion phase a community member believes that her or his views have not been adequately considered, their first action should be to raise the issue with the working group chair(s) for consideration. insert: </p>

If the dispute cannot be resolved with the working group chair(s), the matter shall be brought to the attention of the working group chairs collective, which will vote for or against upholding the decision made by the working-group chair(s). The relevant working group chairs shall recuse themselves from any related discussion within the working group chairs collective. insert: </p>

The decision by the working group chairs collective shall be final in relation to the appeal. However, the matter can always be brought back to the working group for consideration. insert: </p>

3.2 Review Phase

During the Discussion Phase, anyone who has a complaint If a community member believes that the working group chair(s) have erred in their judgement when declaring consensus or other concern about the policy proposal or how it is being handled in the WG lack of consensus at the end of the review phase, they should first raise the matter with the chairs of that WG. working group chair(s). insert: </p>

If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG chairs, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked.  working group chair(s), the matter shall be brought to the attention of the working group chairs collective, which will vote for or against upholding the decision made by the working-group chair(s). The relevant working group chairs shall recuse themselves from any related discussion within the working group chairs collective. insert: </p>

If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the working group chairs collective, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final

3.2 Review and 3.3 Concluding Phases Phase

At these stages of the process – i.e. after the WG chairs have declared initial consensus or the proposal is in Last Call – complaints should not be about the policy proposal itself unless there are exceptional circumstances. delete: </p> delete: <p> Anyone who If a community member believes that the proposal working group chairs collective has not been handled correctly erred in their judgement regarding consensus in the concluding phase last call, she or that the WG chairs have made an incorrect determination of consensus he should bring the issue first raise the matter with the WG chairs. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG chairs, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked.  to the attention of the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final.

4. Appeals Procedure

If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chairs of the WG, an appeal can be submitted for consideration by the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List ([email protected]). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE website. Any appeal All appeals should include a detailed and specific description of the issues issues, and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. outline the decision being appealed. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action a decision has occurred.  delete: </p> delete: <p> The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC made. insert: </p>

5. Conflicts of Interest insert: </h2>

Working group chair(s) that are involved in an appeal should be reached no later than four weeks after submission of the appeal. The following list of people shall recuse themselves from not be part of any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal:  delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> Co-chairs of the relevant WG(s) where the original proposal regarding that appeal in the working group chairs collective. insert: </p>

Acknowledgement: This appendix was discussed delete: </li> delete: <li> Proposer of the original policy proposal delete: </li> delete: <li> Appellant delete: </li> delete: <li> RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair delete: </li> delete: </ul> delete: <p> It is worth noting that the WGCC only reviews the process and not the content of the proposal or the discussion. No less than five WG chairs shall participate in the appeal process.  delete: </p> delete: <p> When considering an appeal, the participating WGCC members shall select one of their number as facilitator, who will chair the discussions relevant to the appeal. Exceptionally, and prepared by agreement with the RIPE Chair, an external facilitator may be appointed instead. delete: </p> delete: <p> If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, they will refer it to the RIPE Chair no later than four weeks after the decision of the WGCC has been published. The RIPE Chair will make a final decision after due consideration and preferably within four weeks after the appeal has been referred to them. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. delete: </p> delete: <p> If an extension of the deadlines is needed at any stage of the appeal procedure, this will be announced on the Policy Announce Mailing List ( delete: <a href="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected] delete: </a> ) and to the appellant(s) via email. delete: </p> delete: <h2> 5. Changes to the PDP  delete: </h2> delete: <p> The PDP is a community governance document that describes how policy is made within RIPE, and not a policy. Any proposal to change the PDP is presented on the RIPE Discussion list and may be discussed during a RIPE Community Plenary. A consensus call is then issued on the RIPE Discussion list ( delete: <a href="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected] delete: </a> ) by the RIPE Chair. It is crucial to carefully manage this process to ensure proper community consensus building. delete: </p> delete: <div class="zd-indent"> delete: <h2 dir="auto"> 6. Provenance delete: </h2> delete: </div> delete: <div class="zd-indent"> delete: <p dir="auto"> In April 2021, the PDP appeals process was reviewed, and the results were published as  delete: <a data-val="a4ce3153fe644e7e980d06c29fbe17b1" href="../../../resolveuid/a4ce3153fe644e7e980d06c29fbe17b1" data-linktype="internal"> ripe-760 delete: </a> . delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> Around the same time, Niall O’Reilly, the RIPE Vice Chair at the time, did a detailed analysis of the evolution of the PDP and published it as  delete: <a data-val="6826369189ef45539ea27e903e319d10" href="../../../resolveuid/6826369189ef45539ea27e903e319d10" data-linktype="internal"> ripe-761 delete: </a> . delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> This was a good opportunity to do an overall review of  delete: <a data-val="13bcf62453ec41cfbe1d8c1b3c159af9" href="../../../resolveuid/13bcf62453ec41cfbe1d8c1b3c159af9" data-linktype="internal"> ripe-710, delete: </a>  the PDP as published in 2018. delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> Draft v1 was published and announced in October 2021: delete: <br /> delete: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-October/002350.html" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-October/002350.html delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> This version was also presented and discussed during RIPE 83. The community requested a dedicated session to discuss the changes. An online feedback session was held in January 2022: delete: <br /> delete: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../participate/ripe/ripe-community-plenary/minutes/revised-pdp-workshop/" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-community-plenary/minutes/revised-pdp-workshop/ delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> Incorporating this feedback, draft v2 was published and announced in February 2022: delete: <br /> delete: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-February/002450.html" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-February/002450.html delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> Incorporating feedback made on the mailing list, draft v3 was published and announced in April 2022: delete: <br /> delete: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-April/002518.html" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-April/002518.html delete: </a> delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> There was general support for this version. No additional requests for changes were received. delete: </p> delete: </div> delete: <div class="zd-indent"> delete: <h2 dir="auto"> 7. Acknowledgments delete: </h2> delete: </div> delete: <div class="zd-indent"> delete: <p dir="auto"> Many thanks to Angela Dall’Ara and Alena Muravska, who provided a lot of insight in the Policy Development Process and suggested many constructive changes that significantly improved the final version of the text. Thanks also to Karla Liddle-White and Antony Gollan for helping with grammar and spelling and to Marita Phelan for dealing with the various draft versions and red-lined documents on the website. delete: </p> delete: <p dir="auto"> Many thanks to everyone who provided feedback throughout the process, including the RIPE Working Group Chairs and the community members who actively participated in the online feedback session, including Peter Koch, Daniel Karrenberg, Rüdiger Volk, Cynthia Revström, Jordi Palet Martínez and Randy Bush. delete: </p> delete: </div> delete: <div class="zd-indent"> delete: <p dir="auto"> Any remaining errors or omissions are solely the fault of the authors. delete: </p> delete: </div> delete: <h2> References delete: </h2> delete: <p> [1] The RIPE community has formed a number of working groups to deal with issues and topics affecting the Internet community. Every RIPE Working Group has either two or three co-chairs. They are responsible for chairing discussions in the working group and, where necessary, making decisions in the Policy Development Process. delete: </p> delete: <p> [2] A proposal can have more than one author. In this document the terms "proposer" and "author" are interchangeable and refer to one or multiple persons who author and submit a proposal. delete: </p> delete: <h4> delete: <a id="appendixa"> delete: </a> Appendix A: Policy Development Process Diagram delete: </h4> delete: <p> delete: <img class="image-inline img-100" src="../../../resolveuid/ce5bd2a58a1d897afc19b8658879dbce" alt="RIPE Policy Development Process" /> delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> delete: <strong> NOTE:  delete: </strong> The actual timelines of individual proposals may vary. They are documented and announced per proposal. delete: </p> delete: <h4> Appendix B: Policy Proposal Template delete: </h4> delete: <ol> delete: <li> Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) delete: </li> delete: <li> Policy Proposal Name: delete: </li> delete: <li> Author Details delete: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> delete: <li> name: delete: </li> delete: <li> email: delete: </li> delete: <li> organisation: delete: </li> delete: </ol> delete: </li> delete: <li> Proposal Version (assigned by the RIPE NCC): delete: </li> delete: <li> Submission Date: delete: </li> delete: <li> Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication: delete: </li> delete: <li> Proposal Type: delete: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> delete: <li> new, modification or deletion delete: </li> delete: </ol> delete: </li> delete: <li> Policy Term: delete: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> delete: <li> Temporary (time period) delete: </li> delete: <li> Indefinite delete: </li> delete: </ol> delete: </li> delete: <li> Summary of Proposal delete: </li> delete: <li> Policy Text delete: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> delete: <li> Current policy text (if modification): delete: </li> delete: <li> New policy text: delete: </li> delete: </ol> delete: </li> delete: <li> Rationale: delete: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;"> delete: <li> Motivation for the proposal delete: </li> delete: <li> Arguments supporting the proposal delete: </li> delete: <li> Arguments opposing the proposal delete: </li> delete: </ol> delete: </li> delete: </ol> Kurt Erik Lindqvist. insert: </p>

  insert: </p>

  insert: </p>